There are rumours floating around that Canada's Oil King PM is so concerned about Singh that he might call a snap election to avoid a Liberal by-election debacle in Burnaby South.

Juicy speculation!

Very risky on Justin's part. Marihuana isn't legal yet. Once he calls, parliament is dissolved. A lot less time for the liberals to line up the cards! Also the media will be all over this, giving Jagmeet and the NDP a billion in free advertising and a huge sympathy vote!

I think Jagmeet will probably win Burnaby South, notwithstanding the narrow margin in 2015. It's going to take a fair bit of the shine off that victory, though, if the NDP loses Outremont in or around the same time.

Is he Lil' Justin? Or the Oil King? I can't keep track! Kennedy Stewart hasn't actually resigned yet although obviously it's coming soon. Trudeau has to call the Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes byelection by October 30, although he can set the actual date for the vote whenever he wants. Outremont is also currently open but in addition to Kennedy Stewart in Burnaby South we're still waiting on Nicolo Di Iorio in Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and Peter Van Loan in York—Simcoe to formalize their announced intentions to step down. In the interest of efficiency I'd like to see Trudeau schedule all five at once, but of course that's up to him. For New Democrats only Outremont and Burnaby South will be all that interesting as the others are all fairly safe seats for other parties.

What is the party's cutoff point below which they won't run candidates in a riding?

I seem to recall at least one election in which they intended to run a candidate in every riding. And as long as that doesn't unduly cost them money or resources, it's probably a good strategy.

But in a case like this, it's certainly true that they can appear noble or principled without really sacrificing anything. The same way I intend to "sit out" the 2020 Olympics, so that Usain Bolt has a chance. :)

The Green Party won't be running a candidate in Burnaby South as a "courtesy" to Singh. That's bound to help, especially with the BC NDP and the Greens being on the same page on the Trans Mountain pipeline issue.

Still, it'll likely be a close race between Singh and his Liberal opponent. So much so that it may matter whether the Communist Party decides to field a candidate. The CP didn't run a candidate in 2015 but they did in 2011 in the former riding of Burnaby Douglas. I can imagine that some NDPers, dissatisfied with Singh's leadership and keen to hasten his departure, might well decide to vote CP. But many more would simply vote Liberal.

My prediction for this by-election, if it is held, is that the NDP will win and the Conservatives will place second with the Liberals being the big losers in percentage terms. Burnaby is not a traditional Liberal area and the Cons under Harper usually placed second in the various Burnaby ridings.

If the Liberals end up in third place in Burnaby South will Trudeau have to step down?

Seriously though that comment is only surpassed in its ludicrousness by suggesting that Singh has to step down if he doesn’t win.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have won majority governments while placing 3rd in many ridings. As someone has already pointed out, the Liberals have a history of placing 3rd in Burnaby South and its predecessors.

On the other hand, the NDP has a history of winning there, and no federal party leader has lost an incumbent riding in a byelection since Arthur Meighen. Of couse Singh doesn't have to step down if he loses, but he's not going to have much credibility left.

If the Liberals end up in third place in Burnaby South will Trudeau have to step down?

Would it leave Trudeau without an "all-access pass" to Parliament Hill?

I'm not saying that if Singh doesn't win then it's a foregone conclusion that he has to quit. But it's really not the same thing for them both.

And if we were to follow this silliness all the way to the pot of gold, wouldn't two out of three (or three out of four) Party leaders have to quit after EVERY byelection? If we have three (or four) major parties, two (or three) of them will be "un-winners" in every byelection.

Here is a link to the old riding of Burnaby Douglas. In 2004 and 2006 a Liberal came in second in the riding. Second place in 1997 it was Reform, in 2000 it was the Alliance, in 2008 and 2011 it was the Conservatives. The riding boundaries are not the same but the electoral pattern is similar. The Liberals came close in this riding and won Burnaby North on the basis that their candidates were stridently anti-pipeline and anti-tankers in Burrard Inlet.

The real kicker would be if the Cons won the seat, which IMO is way more likely than the Liberals coming second.

Well, while I didn't support Singh, I certainly hope he wins in the by-election. I'll be volunteering for Boulerice next year, in principle but now I'm concentrating on Québec solidaire in Gouin and Laurier-Dorion (just north of here and very close by). We came second after the (now disgraced) Liberal and ahead of the PQ there last time.

What's the difference between an MD and a DDS? Medicare is run by (for?) physicians, not dentists. I'm not sure physicians would be willing to open up Medicare to other professions like dentists or optometrists.

No, it's run by public service bureaucrats, who pay doctors and hospitals with tax money for procedures performed and services offered. Doctors in no way get a veto over adding coverage for dental or vision care, any more than primary school teachers can prevent spending on university expansion.

Long story short, traditional snobbery. Dentistry was long considered more of a specialized trade than a medical skill (it used to be done by, of all people, barbers). Poor dental health can still absolutely kill you, but for penny-pinching governments, it's yet to become a major election issue in the same way that not covering oncologists or cardiologists would be.

Same with most surgeries, back in the day. Cue up "Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber".

My understanding is, that among a few other factors, the original Medicare was focused more on catastrophic medical events (and catastrophic costs) rather than on paying for every small procedure, and dental care was seen as being neither life/death nor onerously expensive.

Interestingly, under OHIP (dunno about other provinces) some dental care is covered, so long as it's done in a hospital. Perhaps it's the stuff that can still kill you, but it's certainly not routine cleanings, fillings, tartar removal, cosmetic dentistry or orthodontics.

That's funny. Crawford Killian, the veteran Tyee contributor whose article NR cites in support of that idea, appears not to agree. Here's what he actually wrote about the NDP leader in the aforementioned article:

"...NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has lent a new meaning to the term “empty suit.” He may have been interesting a year ago when he won the leadership, but he’s said and done nothing since to move his party out of the basement. By comparison, look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s dramatic rise in two months to political stardom on what amounts to an American version of the NDP’s 1972 platform.

"Singh’s run in Burnaby South looks desperate; his year of meeting and greeting the party rank and file doesn’t seem to have built the political capital that Trudeau did before 2015."

What should really worry the Liberals is the prospect that Singh goes down to defeat in the by-election. Because that would greatly increase the odds of his being forced to step down from the leadership. Under a new leader, whether Guy Caron or Charlie Angus, the NDP might have a half decent chance of capturing the imagination of voters who are disillusioned with Trudeau but unimpressed, or troubled, by Singh.

I think the Liberals might want to just try and focus on their Burnaby South campaign, because at this point they may end up in last place, and if they do, the media will have a hay day ridiculing Canada's Oil King PM and his team! Why do you think all the Liberal media fan club like Hebert, Delacourt, etc. want a snap election, eh!

The next item on agenda after the Burnaby South win should be to go after Notley hard. Show the real NDPers that she is not NDP. She is fake, she is all buddy buddy with Lil Oil King Justin. Anybody who is on the side of the Oil King cant be on the side of NDP. The sooner they can resolve this the better as when election rolls around next year this should be made clear that the Pipeline Queen is not a a part of the NDP. And The Party is clear in its stand of opposing the pipelines and opposing the fossil fuel cartel led by the Oil King, Pipeline Queen and the Pipeline Jester.

The next item on agenda after the Burnaby South win should be to go after Notley hard. Show the real NDPers that she is not NDP. She is fake, she is all buddy buddy with Lil Oil King Justin. Anybody who is on the side of the Oil King cant be on the side of NDP. The sooner they can resolve this the better as when election rolls around next year this should be made clear that the Pipeline Queen is not a a part of the NDP.

Are you talking about the next federal election? IOW, you want the leader of the federal NDP to go around the country telling everyone that the premier of Alberta is not a good New Democrat?

Hey folks, great to be here in Charlottetown, and the message I'm bringing to you in this campaign is: Rachel Notley is a fake New Democrat!"

Or do you mean in the Alberta provincial election? If so, I can assure that attacking Rachel Notley as being insufficiently left-wing will accomplish nothing of what Singh might want to do in Alberta, even if anyone in the province cares what he has to say.

Thanks for your grown-up, intelligent, unbiased opinions, gadar. For a minute there I thought you might have some kind of emotional axe to grind or something.

All the names I used have been used multiple times before by other posters. None of those names is being used for the first time. I am sure they annoyed you as much when they were used previously.

My posts follow the same pattern which has been acceptable around here for years, so why draw the line at me. If my posts are childish, foolish and biased then my friend look around, you will find that I have ample company.

The next item on agenda after the Burnaby South win should be to go after Notley hard. Show the real NDPers that she is not NDP. She is fake, she is all buddy buddy with Lil Oil King Justin. Anybody who is on the side of the Oil King cant be on the side of NDP. The sooner they can resolve this the better as when election rolls around next year this should be made clear that the Pipeline Queen is not a a part of the NDP.

Are you talking about the next federal election? IOW, you want the leader of the federal NDP to go around the country telling everyone that the premier of Alberta is not a good New Democrat?

Hey folks, great to be here in Charlottetown, and the message I'm bringing to you in this campaign is: Rachel Notley is a fake New Democrat!"

If Singh doesnt address the difference in policy of Alberta NDP and the Federal NDP then he is going to be asked about it. And NDP would be painted as talking out of both sides of their mouth. It will surely be made an issue in the Burnaby byelection. The Party has to find a way to address it.

But this problem is going to be more for the byelection than the general election because Alberta election is going to take care of that.

About calling Notley 'Fake NDP', that is not my creation, other posters I think have called her that when she was seen as close to Lil Oil King Justin.

Quote:

Or do you mean in the Alberta provincial election? If so, I can assure that attacking Rachel Notley as being insufficiently left-wing will accomplish nothing of what Singh might want to do in Alberta, even if anyone in the province cares what he has to say.

The fact remains that Alberta NDP is a subset of the Federal NDP. Notley will be asked to explain her pipeline champion stance vis a vis the Singh stance of no pipelines. She will have no choice but to criticize Singh. And Singh will have to respond and without going back on his policy he will have no choice but to criticize her. In that case only one can be real NDP.

Of the three major Canadian political parties the NDP is the most complex and least understood. The Notley vs Singh example is probably the best opportunity to explain the huge diversity of NDP membership.

Yes, obviously, if anti-pipeline is federal NDP policy, Singh can acknowledge that his position is different from Notley's. That doesn't mean he has to go around telling everyone she's a "fake New Democrat", especially when the epithet is based on one single point of difference.

I believe that in the late 70s and early 80s, Joe Clark disagreed with Bill Davis on the issue of the NEP. I'm pretty sure, though, that Clark didn't base his campaigns on telling everyone that Davis wasn't a real Tory.

Of the three major Canadian political parties the NDP is the most complex and least understood. The Notley vs Singh example is probably the best opportunity to explain the huge diversity of NDP membership.

The differences between NDP memberships make us stronger not weaker!

I guess we'll test that theory in the upcoming federal and Alberta elections.